A revealing comment about the corruption of climate science occurred before a Joint Congressional Inquiry. They were seeking to determine the claims by Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick about the scientific inaccuracy of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick.”

That famous graph (Figure 1) appeared in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report and became the poster child for the proof of human-caused global warming.

Figure 1 shows the graph Mann produced that rewrote climate history by eliminating a warmer-than-today period between 900 and 1300 AD called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). They established an Ad Hoc committee under the chair of Edward Wegman to determine who was correct.

(Figure 1)

When questioned by the Congressional Committee, one researcher, Rosanne D’Arrigo, made a comment that reflected naiveté and duplicity. When asked why data was narrowly and selectively chosen D’Arrigo replied: “That you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie.”

Cherry picking involves picking the start and end point of a section of the temperature record to argue for warming or cooling with evidence. In teaching students about the dangers, I drew the “UP” portion of Figure 2 on the blackboard, then added two lines for a “DOWN” claim, and finally two more lines for a “UP” trend.

(Figure 2)

One of the first examples that confirmed my suspicions about what was going on with the corruption of global warming research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is shown in Figure 3. The top graph was presented in Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report to support the claim that,

“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

Benjamin Santer lead author of the Chapter personally inserted the sentence to replace one that already agreed to by the other chapter authors.

“While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

The bottom graph shows the longer record, which supports that conclusion. Dennis Avery and Fred Singer noted in 2006,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world, and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

(Figure 3)

Recently, reports of the warmest years in the record circulate to amplify the false stories about human-caused global warming. For example, The Guardian newspaper headline for 24 March 2014 says,

13 of 14 warmest years on record occurred in 21st century – UN

Of course they have! The global temperature rose from 1680, the coldest period of the Little Ice Age (LIA) to 1998. Since then temperatures levelled and declined slightly, in what is known as the hiatus. Figure 4 illustrates the situation for the period of the instrumental record starting in 1880. It is not surprising that the highest temperatures occur in the most recent portion, even though they have levelled off.

(Figure 4)

Figure 5 shows the same graph as Figure 4, but now the temperature is extended back to the nadir of the LIA. The trend from 1680 was problematic for the IPCC because it showed the current warming was part of a longer natural trend.

(Figure 5)

We know the objective of the hockey stick to rewriting climate history was deliberate.

During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The ‘hockey stick,’ or as some prefer the ‘hokey stick,’ achieved the goal. It replaced a graph that appeared in the 1990 Report (Figure 6) showing the longer trend warming.

(Figure 6)

It also showed the MWP was warmer than the current temperatures, something that is still true, despite the claims of the “warmest years on record”. All this confirms Disraeli’s observation about “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” It is especially applicable to the deception about global warming.

Comments

This is an excellent example of the result of the leftist manipulation of the educational system. Like Maryanne said, when I also was a lad we were taught real science and history. Back in the 1950’s and early 60’s we were taught that we were still leaving the last ice age; thus, the weather would be warmer. We read about how the Vikings, traveled to Newfoundland and the northern Atlantic coastline and were so in awe of the vegetation that they called it Vineland.

This is an excellent example of the result of the leftist manipulation of the educational system. Like Maryanne said, when I also was a lad we were taught real science and history. Back in the 1950’s and early 60’s we were taught that we were still leaving the last ice age; thus, the weather would be warmer. We read about how the Vikings, traveled to Newfoundland and the northern Atlantic coastline and were so in awe of the vegetation that they called it Vineland.

Brian Smith, nuclear should be now, and probably will be widely accepted, (IMO) when fossil fuel eventually run out in the exact year…..no just kidding. Nobody knows or can even estimate when or even if that will ever happen. Also it would make sense to me that new deposits will continually emerge through the centuries as burying and decomposition of carbon is an ongoing thing.
Regarding alternatives, there is a lot of technology already developed and as you pointed out, they are not without some problems. The main problem I think is the storage aspect. Once they get that figured out, and when the market will bear such a change, it will becomes affordable by virtue of its necessity. And that ‘naturally’ won’t be until fossil fuel runs out. Artificially induced by governments will only serve to bankrupt us, slow human progress and fill a few elitists pockets.
Small scale, domestically, I think alternatives could become popular if the storage problem could be solved. The price could start inching down, as it became more popular. As a large manufacturing solution, or for commercial locomotion needs ( land sea or air) for example, alternatives won’t be an effective solution any time soon.

Someone, someday will ask a new question, " What happens when we run out of fossil fuels", then the real panic will set in. There will likely be a mass reduction in Global population and wide spread savagery. Fossil fuels are not demonic to the Climate, they are precious to mankind, and sorry but there is no real wind or solar alternative that will come close to replacing them. The current Green initiatives are a waste of time and money and are a distraction from the question above. Every installed KW of Solar and Wind power requires a KW of backup power from fossil fuels making the renewable program an inefficient and expensive experiment. Better start thinking hybrid nuclear and get over Fukushima.

It’s a growing monster, already gone past the definition of a religion and is now a full fledged political ideology. The more sheeple and leeches who jump on the bandwagon the more momentum it gathers. It will be hard to stop if people don’t start getting real vocal real quick.

Liza Rosie… “livelihoods depend on it…” Indeed… It would be interesting how many “livelihoods” around the world now depend on perpetuating this hoax and wealth redistribution plan…. There’s obviously the Gores, the Suzukis,and the Wynnes; but consider all the professors and government researchers who’s grants and salaries depending on pushing it… And how many at the UN would be out of a job if it became known that “the sky isn’t falling…”?… How many bureaucrats in government agencies across the Western World who’s job is to play a part in this theatre of the absurd?… And I dare say, not a few paid trolls who’s job is to try to obfuscate whenever a Dr. Tim Ball presents the facts… It is now indeed a whole industry unto itself ,and when the bubble bursts, as it will sooner or later, there’s going to be how many looking for a new career, while trying to paint over their past?…

Climatefallacy posted,
“Think about it, we’re being taxed on the weather.
- on a theory about a ‘stab in the dark’ guess of what it might do in the future
- even though they acknowledge they could be totally wrong, as proven by models and the fraud
- and the tax will do nothing, if even at a tiny, minuscule, microscopic, statistically inconsequential percentage point fraction.”

…and these anthropogenic climate change authorities come onto the comment pages to enlighten the knuckle dragging masses. There is no insult which will turn us into believing that humans are the main agents of climate change. It IS still seriously disputed, by a growing number of scientists and the general public. We’re not going to buy it just because your livelihoods depend on it. It is a travesty that government policy is being written based on the lie of man made climate change. It has to be stopped in its tracks.

Nice video. Part of the problem with this video is where it starts. No one, no one knows what exactly happened to our climate or earth before written history records starts. We hear of ice core samples etc. and yet they don’t make much sense because we have a WWII plane buried under 250 feet of ice in Greenland. Do the math and the thickness and time periods are messed up royally. The historical records like the Romans and that of Greenland are good. Archaeology finding tropical plants in the Arctic is good. To bad the other beliefs are put at the start. The start just makes the argument weak.

I quote Juan Fitzpatricia: – “If there is any relationship for solar variations, it is clearly no (sic) apparent…” I trust Juan that you have heard of Google?… Do yourself a favour and research “The Maunder Minimum” before you make yourself look foolish again…

I realize that there is no convincing a denier, like Andy Neimers, of anything, but this claim that “even a 1/10 of 1 per cent fluctuation of the Sun’s radiation in a given year” is so simply shown as being nonsense that it called into question basic algebra skills.

The first exercise that is done when analyzing data is a scatter plot. When to variables, like CO2 and temperature are related, a scatter plot will reveal any obvious relationship. Temperature vs CO2 looks like this

If there is any relationship for solar variations, it is clearly no apparent. And compared to the relationship of Temp vs CO2, it is simply non-existent. If this claim had any validity at all, then GMT would vary with TSI at least as much as it has with CO2. And this is clearly not the case. The coefficient of correlation for CO2 is

In fact, when a basic analysis of GMT as a function of TSI, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and CO2 gives a statistical significance for TSI at about 0.08316 or of about an 8% probability of getting this result from random chance. As science goes, this says that the result is simply meaningless. On the other hand, the significance of GMT to CO2 is 5.81e-16. That is a likelihood of getting this by random chance of 0.00000000000000581%. Simply, it is statistically impossible for this relationship to be coincidental.

The fact is that, no, variation in the Sun’s output is simply not the cause. And anyone that claims otherwise has no clue as to what they are talking about.

RiCHARD WAKEFEILD’s response to NEOBIOGNOSIS’s original comment on stratospheric cooling was to post a link to the web site of Dr David Evans, an man who has never published a paper on climate science and whose grasp of climate science is tenuous at best. The link is to a Gish Gallop series of references that are that contain some elements of a scientific nature but specifically demonstrate Evans’s basic lack of understanding of climate science.

This post certainly does not explain satisfactorily current warming at surface and stratospheric cooling as observed by satellite and surface data collection.

Richard Wakefield replied to a comment made by Neobiognosis regarding taking the stratospheric temperature and that most people live on the surface of the planet.

It is worth noting that his reply only considers temperatures in Ontario. Could I point out to Richard Wakefield, who claims to have performed such analyses for industry for 20 years, that Ontario state has a total area of 1,076,395 km^2, the earth has an area of 510,072,000 km^2 in other words he is using dubious temperature data for 0.18% of the surface of the earth to make a point about global warming. With a population estimate of 13,873,933 this represents about 0.19% of the earths population. This would not pass any test on data quality.

He then extrapolates without any evidence, what he has found across the whole of North America. Astounding!

NEOBIOGNOSIS commented 4 hours ago
If earth’s atmosphere is warmed by the sun, stratospheric temperature should rise ans the extra energy heating the atmosphere would be external. If on the other hand the additional energy is sourced from greenhouse gasses, then one would expect stratospheric temperatures to fall.

My father is 93 years old and has a Phd in physics specializing in meteorology . During the Cold War he was stationed on the DEW line and his job was to determine the effects of radiation fallout in the Arctic since it was thought that in a war with Russia , the missiles would come over the top , not across the oceans. He was once at East Anglia University in Britain where the UN set up their circus , the IPCC. Back in the ’60’s there were several studies that talked of a coming ice age or cooling period caused by several factors working together including a small thought wondering if the Earth’s rotation around the Sun was pulling it away if centrifugal force was at play at all. Even the CBC’s foul mouthed science talk show host, Suzuki talked about a global cooling period. After he retired my father taught Master’s level physics courses at our nearby university but he kept abreast of the issues. I remember him being quite puzzled after the global cooling discussions were jettisoned in favour of twaddle like Mann’s hockey stick. He said " I can see how some corrections could be done to alter the outcomes of the models slightly but to do an entire 180 degree change in thought was very puzzling given the amount of work ,time and consensus done to arrive at the original conclusions. " How very strange. my father is very diplomatic and he wouldn’t say Bullshit if he stepped in it , but I have no problem with it.

The truth is that man has little to do with it.
The lie is that its man made and we must have a new world order to set things right and save the planet from certain destruction.
The fraud happens when scientists buy into it for research money. When it becomes just another way to stay at the trough you know the science is rotten.
The fraud happens when governments like our present one make policy based on the man made climate change lie, because it is a lie.

Peter Netterville, Tim Ball does not claim to be a scientist so you can not really accuse him of fraud. He is just presenting some evidence to bolster his view that main-stream scientists have exaggerated global temperature increases.

You may not agree with him, and his selective evidence may not stand up to scrutiny, but he has a right to express his opinion. More people should feel free to articulate their opinions rather than just ranting.

Whatever happened to the day when scientific fraud held such a negative stigma in society that even if the scientist was not charged with fraud, they would never work as a scientist again? I long for the days when it was unthinkable that a scientist should commit fraud.

If earth’s atmosphere is warmed by the sun, stratospheric temperature should rise ans the extra energy heating the atmosphere would be external. If on the other hand the additional energy is sourced from greenhouse gasses, then one would expect stratospheric temperatures to fall.

@billelder “Climate change alarmism and linking (mostly western) human activity to climate change is a political agenda masquerading as science.”

How can the ‘believers’ not be the least bit suspicious? How can they drink the codswallop with nary a thought to the possibility that there is good reason for the ‘powers that be’ to repeat this lie ad nauseum. There is indeed political AGENDA behind this whole farce.
Is it that they have bought into it with all of their ‘intelligence’ and considering the possibility that they have been duped would be just too hard to bear? Too big a blow to their ego, make them feel like stupid sheeple?
How bloody omnipotent for man to think it has that much influence. The Earth goes about its business with no significant interference from man. Always has and as long as the planet lasts always will. We are just not that important.

“Climate change alarmism and linking (mostly western) human activity to climate change is a political agenda masquerading as science.”

Be A Rebel

Sign up here to be a part of The Rebel. The fearless source of news, opinion, and activism that you won't find anywhere else! Get our weekly newsletters, sign petitions, and participate in the latest discussions on The Rebel.